NEC 4 OPTION B
Under contract data part 1 the MoM is identified Short Schedule of Cost Components. There is a BoQ provided and is measured under a ARM4 MoM (with modifications). Under contract data part 2 section 4 Payment is identified as the Bill Of Quantities, and a total identified Prices is also identified in this section.
Can a Contractor remeasure the entire project based on the SSCC rates and void the BoQ quantities and rates?
Interesting question, on balance the answer is probably no.
Clause 50.3 says that the amount payable is the Price for Work Done to Date (along with some other things). Clause 11.2(30) then defines the Price for Work Done to Date, generally, as quantity of work the Contractor has completed at the rate in the Bill of Quantities. Accordingly, in respect of the amount payable, there is no mechanism to use anything other than the BoQ that is provided.
Clauses 60.4 to 60.6 provide some additional compensation events in connection with the BoQ. Of those, only 60.6 mentions the method of measurement and requires the PM to issue an instruction to correct a mistake in the BoQ which is a departure from the rules for item descriptions or division of the work into items in the method of measurement.
The method of measurement is stated to be the SSCC. That contains no rules for item descriptions or division of work into items (rather it divides costs into items). Accordingly, you end up with something that is nonsense.
We then have to look at the rules the courts employ to interpret contracts. One of those rules is that anything that is patently nonsense is struck out (obviously I’m oversimplifying this). In which case, clause 60.6 (either in its entirety or just the first bullet point) would likely be struck out. In that case, the Contractor is stuck with the BoQ, warts and all.
A further consideration would be that the wholesale remeasurement of the works based on the SSCC was not the intention of the parties when the contract was made. That could result in a argument for mistake, which would either mean the contract is void or voidable.
So, whilst you could make that argument, in my opinion you would be on shaky ground for a number of reasons.